I find it of some interest that pharmas like Pfizer are trying to dictate to Canada what Canada can and cannot do with drugs purchased from Pfizer.
Once the sale is done, the goods belong to the purchaser, to do with as they see fit. Axiomatic capitalism, yes?
Yet big pharma is using the courts (I thought hairy-chested, alpha-type capitalists hated lawyers?!?) and regulatory agencies (I thought hairy-chested, alpha-type capitalists hated regulations?!?) to tell Canada what do with drugs, AFTER the sale.
Evidently, regulation is a bad thing only when consumers expect some protection, and the courts are a bad thing only when the little guy wants his day.
Somehow, I expect big pharma has a bigger PAC than Canada does.
I'm calling bull#$%t!
Here's an interesting read
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/8481771.htm
The two interesting points I got out of it were;
"Pfizer's Hardwick agrees with Pawlenty that the business model isn't sustainable, "but he's got the wrong solution to it. He should use his power and prestige as governor to lobby the U.S. government to make it a trade issue. Why should Canada be able to dictate to us terms of pricing?"
I didn't realize the Canadians were pointing a gun to Hardwick's head when the contract was negotiated. And I simply ADORE the 'why should we be accountable to a government' attitude.
and;
"But some question whether the governor has any business telling a corporation making and selling legal products in a free-market economy how to run its operations"
This is how far we've gone to returning to the 20's - what makes anyone think laissez faire will fair any better this go around?
Once the sale is done, the goods belong to the purchaser, to do with as they see fit. Axiomatic capitalism, yes?
Yet big pharma is using the courts (I thought hairy-chested, alpha-type capitalists hated lawyers?!?) and regulatory agencies (I thought hairy-chested, alpha-type capitalists hated regulations?!?) to tell Canada what do with drugs, AFTER the sale.
Evidently, regulation is a bad thing only when consumers expect some protection, and the courts are a bad thing only when the little guy wants his day.
Somehow, I expect big pharma has a bigger PAC than Canada does.
I'm calling bull#$%t!
Here's an interesting read
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/8481771.htm
The two interesting points I got out of it were;
"Pfizer's Hardwick agrees with Pawlenty that the business model isn't sustainable, "but he's got the wrong solution to it. He should use his power and prestige as governor to lobby the U.S. government to make it a trade issue. Why should Canada be able to dictate to us terms of pricing?"
I didn't realize the Canadians were pointing a gun to Hardwick's head when the contract was negotiated. And I simply ADORE the 'why should we be accountable to a government' attitude.
and;
"But some question whether the governor has any business telling a corporation making and selling legal products in a free-market economy how to run its operations"
This is how far we've gone to returning to the 20's - what makes anyone think laissez faire will fair any better this go around?
